[Lingtyp] Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?

[Mark Post]

Hi Adam,

In Assamese (and in a number of other Indo-Aryan languages), the final/inflected ("matrix") verb in a clause chain can indeed develop aux-like functional values which are in many ways similar to those found in serial verb constructions (so, for example, be > STAT; stay > DUR; go/come > DIR; see > TENT(ative), etc.). And while clause chains that end in such verbs tend to be more tightly-integrated even than co-subordinate constructions tend to be more generally (so, for example, they would share the object of the chain-medial, more "lexical" verb in addition to the usual subject and TAM-sharing), they don't in general seem to become "monoclausal", in the strict sense that dependent marking on the chain-medial verb is no longer functional. I had at one point hoped to adopt an assumption similar to your bolded assumption below, and wrote a couple of papers on the topic once which basically leaned toward such an analysis of Assamese. But my tendency now would be to simply look at these as particular constructions within a cline of clause-integration (in a sense in which "mono/bi-clausality" is defined in terms of its symptoms rather than in terms of an underlying abstraction).

https://www.academia.edu/197270/Assamese_verb_serialization_in_functional_areal-typological_and_diachronic_perspective

https://www.academia.edu/197267/Grammaticalization_and_the_discourse_distribution_of_serial_verbs_in_Assamese

cheers
Mark

------ Original Message ------
From: "Adam James Ross Tallman" <ajrtallman at utexas.edu<mailto:ajrtallman at utexas.edu>>
To: "LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org" <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
Sent: 29/11/2018 10:30:54 AM
Subject: [Lingtyp] Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?

Hello all,

I have been wondering about the importance of diachrony in synchronic analysis, and I have question. It seems to be generally true that biclausal structures can become monoclausal structures over time and not the reverse. I wonder if people know of cases where matrix verbs develop specialized meanings in complement/subordinating constructions, like we would expect of semantically bleaching auxiliaries, without the construction becoming unambiguously monoclausal.

So whatever structure stage 2 has, it simply retains aspects of biclausality without being reanalyzed as in stage 3 or if, for instance, the structure just never develops into a monoclausal one because it simply falls out of use.

1. [[...V...]...V] -> 2. ?[[...V...]..."AUX/V"...]? -> 3. [...V...AUX...]

I'm wondering whether it is safe to assume if in some construction ...V...AUX... where we decide AUX is distinct from its source V because its semantics are have diverged (or bleached), then we can always assume the structure must be monoclausal regardless of any structural properties that make it look biclausal (i.e. its been reanalyzed without any structural facts that suggest actualization) because of the universal monoclausal -> biclausal trend.

Sorry if this is a little abstract; help would be greatly appreciated.

best,

Adam



--
Adam J.R. Tallman
Investigador del Museo de Etnografía y Folklore, la Paz
PhD, UT Austin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181129/cfd87908/attachment.htm>